Talk:Nautical terms
Bow I know ventral isn't the nautical term, but it is used often in Star Trek to describe the bottom of a vessel, I thought it relevant. | Talah Blue 07:01, 15 Feb 2005 (GMT) Walk the plank I have difficulty with English at times, but I don't understand this page after reading through it several times. They made Worf walk the plank when they celebrated his promotion??? --Makon 06:03, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC) :Yes, they did. I suppose it was a form of good-natured hazing. -- Miranda Jackson (Talk) 06:13, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::My contribution was not speculative opinion. It is extremely doubtful that such a thing actually happened often, if even at all. I can dig up more references if anyone likes, but off the top of my head here's one source. -- Thylacine 02:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Forum: Nautical terms This new forum has been initiated following the discussion at vfd regarding the article dismissed, which can now be found at Talk:Dismissed. That article has since been moved to and rewritten as military parlance (with "dismissed" being kept as a redirect). This part of the discussion has been moved here in order to properly follow up on Alan del Beccio's suggestion that other terminological articles be moved in a similar fashion. To quote Alan at 00:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC): :Perhaps we do the same with bow, stern, port, starboard, walk the plank, etc, and merge them to nautical terms? (I'm not including ventral and dorsal, because those are more terms in anatomy.) So, there you go. It might help to read the discussion at Talk:Dismissed to learn more. So... have at it! ---- I agree. 'Kay, bye. --From Andoria with Love 04:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC) Course/heading meaning? When setting a course/heading (say, 57 mark 319), what do the numbers mean? Cheers. Mrinsuperable 06:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC) :Imagine the ship at the center of two circles marked in degrees, one horizontal, and one vertical. The "Zero" of BOTH circles is in a line directly in front of the ship's bow. A course/heading reads out as follows (simple example): "Forty-Five on the horizontal circle Mark clearly separate the two numbers Ten on the vertical circle" In physical terms, if you are directly facing "Zero Mark Zero", the course indicated would be to the right of your current facing half way between 12 and 3 o'clock on a watchface and ten degrees ABOVE your current level. :Occasionally, the writers mess up and use numbers larger than 360 for one or both of the readings.Capt Christopher Donovan 10:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC) :: You can also check Nautical terms -- MstrControl talk | 14:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC) ::You know, when i was reading it... I thought, hmmm... 12 mark 820, could that be 12 mark 82.0? It is common in both Army and Navy military communications to use a short pause to denote a decimal, like the 7-6-2 (7.62 - pronounced seven six two) millimeter of the AK-47 or 5-5-6 (5.56 - pronounced five five six) of the M16/M4. So for numbers larger than 360, they may just be counting to one significant digit, 820 for 82.0 875 for 87.5, 663 for 66.3, &tc. 19:06, November 9, 2009 (UTC) kassorlae Head We've seen heads, or parts of them at least 4 times in Trek: (in "in universe" order) 1. Archer's quarters during ENT S1 taking a shower when the AG fails 2. Ilia's sonic shower in TMP. 3. Troi's bathtub in TNG's "Genesis" 4. Troi and Riker in a tub together in "ST:Nemesis".Capt Christopher Donovan 06:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC) :Just to correct the above, Troi and Riker were in a tub together in , not Nemesis. ;) --From Andoria with Love 19:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC) ::The head is the toilet, not the shower or room with a shower or tub. TMK, a toilet has never been seen on Star Trek. Well, there was the brig scene in ST:V --Babaganoosh 19:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC) ''Head: The "head" aboard a Navy ship is the bathroom. The term comes from the days of sailing ships when the place for the crew to relieve themselves was all the way forward on either side of the bowsprit, the integral part of the hull to which the figurehead was fastened.'' http://www.cvn70.navy.mil/facts/navterms.htm#head Since tubs and showers are ALSO kept in bathrooms, it is accurate to say that if we saw the room where they were, it was a head, even if we did not see a toilet.Capt Christopher Donovan 07:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Station keeping Not sure about this article. Seems like something that could be squeezed into Nautical terms or something on par with that type of article. Right now it is little more than a dictionary reference with two citations including its usage. --Alan 02:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC) :Support, for reasons given by Alan.– Cleanse 06:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC) ::Support.--31dot 00:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC) :::Support. --U.E.S.P.A. 00:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC) ::::Merged. --From Andoria with Love 22:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Keelhauling Just another Nautical term. --Alan 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC) :Merge. As it was never actually depicted, I have to agree.--31dot 00:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC) ::Thirded. (not sure how much sway I have here though) --Morder 00:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC) :::Fourthed. :-p – Cleanse 06:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC) ::::Fifth. Heck, I made this article - had I known there was a Nautical terms article, I would have added it there. Merge away! -Rhinecanthus rectangulus 23:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC) :::::Delete. Add to Nautical Terms later, with original or Creative Commons text that isn't copied from Wikipedia. TribbleFurSuit 17:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC) ::::::Merged and partially reworded. It was only a sentence or two that was directly copied from Wikipedia, and it wasn't word-for-word, so it's no biggie, methinks. --From Andoria with Love 05:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Shipshape in Bristol fashion Phrase, one that we don't make pages for...— Morder 22:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC) :I don't see how that qualifies for immediate deletion based on the criteria above. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I would say #2 and #5 :) — Morder 23:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC) :It isn't patent nonsense at any stretch, especially the example given, and it has clear definition and context within both the article and the episode. This should be put up for a standard deletion discussion. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC) It most certainly does fit #2 - from Memory Alpha:Patent nonsense "Non-wikified articles. A good sign of patent nonsense is an article that is completely unformatted and contains no links to other pages." I concede the point, however as you're probably right. — Morder 23:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC) ::I agree that it does not qualify for immediate deletion.--31dot 23:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC) :: Originally proposed by Morder as an immediate delete, on the grounds that we do not make articles for phrases.--31dot 23:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC) ::: Delete --- Jaz 02:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC) ::I was going to delete this outright, but I wondered if there was any support for merging this with Nautical terms.--31dot 01:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Support Merge - I support a merge with Nautical terms. — Morder (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC) :::: Merged --Alan 04:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC) flank speed and others ever hear the term when the ship wasn't fighting someone? There was nothing at all wrong with my edits. Come about? Come on, you don't think that means to turn around? if you keep harassing me, I will report you. I hereby ask for a review. (I know how it'll go...) --Babaganoosh 13:35, September 16, 2010 (UTC) :First, take a chill pill, man. Any edit is fair game for changes at any time- that's what a wiki is. It certainly is not harrassment. Anyway, Flank speed is not exclusive to combat maneuvers- it may be often used during them, but can be used anytime. You don't have to believe me- look it up. "Come about" is usually followed with a statement of where the commander wants the ship to come about to.--31dot 13:47, September 16, 2010 (UTC) ::I don't see this as harassment, since there are reasons for the current wording, as stated by 31dot. - 13:52, September 16, 2010 (UTC) flank speed is not used in any non-combat situation in Star Trek. And did you see how fast the edit happened? They got rid of all my edits which was unnecessary...--Babaganoosh 13:56, September 16, 2010 (UTC) :How it is used is not relevant to the overall definition. I did not remove all of your changes to the article.--31dot 13:57, September 16, 2010 (UTC)